Well, Obama's restored the Dow back to where it was in 2000 at the citizen's expense

[mule_train]

while everyone else, twists in the wind

Too back Reagan's dead, we were better off with him - unemployment wasnt any worse, there werent 'guest worker' programs glutting the job market, and 'free trade' programs exporting jobs, and wall street was living it up on tax cuts instead of BAILOUTS!!!!

[spanone]

1. pfft

[dionysus]

2. FAIL

[mule_train]

5. your use of FAIL tells me you're young and hip

I'd better rethink what I wrote, if i didnt get your approval

[Engineer4Obama]

11. Your praise of Regan and utter lack of facts tells me your don't care about facts

Obama better rethink all of his policies if he can't get your approval

[mule_train]

15. it wasnt praise of reagan, it was an INSULT to compare him to reagan

'worse than reagan' was meant to be a huge criticism

and i stand by it

(I will give obama credit for not pushing us toward nuke war, my comments on the economy stand, i am NOT comparing obama to reagan on warmongering)

[salguine]

64. People post "FAIL" when they can't refute an argument.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Not fair. nt

[Zywiec]

4. I wonder what percentage of the citizens have 401K plans

that were helped by the rising Dow?

:shrug:

[mule_train]

7. Since when is portfolio insurance a citizen liability?

and when did restoring stock values ever become a method for 'spreading wealth around' rather than concentrating it even further?

[Zywiec]

10. Thanks for answering my question. NOT. n/t

[mule_train]

14. wow, you realy had me, until the 'NOT'

that's so snarky and original

I'll have to use that sometime

[Craftsman]

13. Since when should my tax dollars go to boast someone's investments

[piratefish08]

16. I wonder what percentage of the unemployed citizens are decimating their 401K's

and paying tax penalties for the right to do so in order to eat and pay rent?

Shovel ready projects?? Definitely fail.

Saving corporate america - our administrations first and seemingly only priority.

We are fucked - maybe a more slow and gentle fucking. But still fucked.

[Zywiec]

17. Well if the unemployment rate is 10%, maybe that many? n/t

[mule_train]

23. unemplyment/underemployment waaay over 10 percent

when you throw in underemployed people in tech with either too much or too little experience

[mule_train]

19. " unemployed citizens are decimating their 401K's" ->that's EXACTLY what's happening

to at least one person I know

and getting a tax penalty for trying to survive while his job was taken by an H-1b he HAD TO TRAIN

[piratefish08]

22. I have a few friends already in that position. My own family is one economic "hiccup"

away from joining them.

But the country keeps their blinders on and cheers.

[Postman]

6. "Restored" is not the word I would use....

Re-inflated the bubble - is more appropriate, as per Thom Hartmann.

Nothing of substance has changed in regards to regulations. Wall Street is back to their shenanigans in the derivatives trading. People are still unemployed. Where are the jobs that pay a living wage?

The Credit Card/Home Equity Loan economy of the past is done. Working people are tapped out as far as debt is concerned.

No money to spend means no economic growth. They're doing it with smoke and mirrors and its bound to come tumbling down again...

[Craftsman]

8. When the middle class get thrown a bone, Wall St. gets the steak

[mule_train]

12. thanks for catching the meaning of this thread

and seeing things as they really are

it's never 'different' when 'our guy' does it to us

[SIMPLYB1980]

9. .

[TheWebHead]

18. you probably aren't watching or reading much financial news

if you're invested in the healthcare sector you're terrified and constantly looking to DC with current reform legislation.

if you're invested in the utility sector you're terrified and constantly looking to DC with pending cap & trade legislation.

if you're invested in the banking sector you're terrified and constantly looking to DC with new financial regulation.

if you're invested in the retail sector you're terrified and constantly looking to DC with proposed card check legislation.

if you're invested in any sector you're terrified and constantly looking to DC with proposals to raise capital gains taxes.

[mule_train]

20. " you're invested in the healthcare sector"->youre confident that insurance lobbyists wrote the bil

all 2000 pages of it

[Zywiec]

24. What if you've invested in the international sector? n/t

[Romulox]

47. If you're in the investment banking sector, you're terrified your taxpayer funded bonus check

might be a day or two late!

Don't you pay attention? :rofl:

[Peacetrain]

21. You and that horse....

[mule_train]

25. gonna run me over with your 'peace train'?

Orwell would have 'high 5'ved' you for that one

[Peacetrain]

29. Got to you huh...

Orwell.. well aren't you just the educated little fella

[Peacetrain]

35. By the way, if you think it was better with reagan.. you are definitely in the wrong area

Too back Reagan's dead, we were better off with him - unemployment wasnt any worse, there werent 'guest worker' programs glutting the job market, and 'free trade' programs exporting jobs, and wall street was living it up on tax cuts instead of BAILOUTS!!!!


Funny some one else was posting articles on it being better under bush yesterday... interesting to say the least

[cali]

26. we were better off with Reagan? Man I get weary of the brain dead dogshit

morons post.

[mule_train]

27. It's not a praise of reagan, reagan opened the door to economic dark ages for working people

it's just a stark comparison and challange - why is Obama really better, once you peel away the 'soaring rhetoric'?

[cali]

34. Let me count the ways.

Ledbetter,supporting hate crimes legislation, yes the rhetoric, Justice Sotomayor, other solid federal judges, funding infrastructure projects, virtually everything concerning the environment. Honestly, it's either incredibly stupid or completely disingenuous to say that Obama's not better than Reagan.

DUH.

[mule_train]

38. you really think the tech worker who has to train one of Obama's H-1b replacements cares about 'Hate

Crime' laws, when the Indian tech manager send him packing for being a citizen?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135952/Tech_workers_dealt_setback_in_H_1B_case

Tech workers dealt setback in H-1B case
Appeals court affirms lower court decision, cites lack of 'standing'
By Patrick Thibodeau
July 27, 2009 07:45 PM ET
Comments(38)Recommended(24)DiggTwitterShare/EmailMore





The U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has ruled against the tech workers that have been fighting a federal decision to allow foreign students to work on a student visa from one year to 29 months.

The Programmers Guild and others fighting the student visa extension, approved during President Bush's administration and subsequently backed by President Obama, argued that the extension was a backdoor H-1B increase that has brought more competition to the labor market, hurting wages and job prospects of U.S. workers.

The Bush administration extended the visa in 2008 because of the high demand for H-1B visas at the time, and concern that students, unable to get a visa, would return.

[cali]

42. uh, I'm sure that lots of people who are only concerned with their own interests

don't give a shit about civil rights. Clearly that includes YOU, dear.

[mule_train]

44. if 'civil rights' doesnt include racial discrimination against ME, then yes, you're right

i dont read anything in your post any more moral than 'no criticize party'

[mule_train]

28. 27 post posts, countless unrecs and over 250 reads, yet no point by point rebuttal

although I will conceed that there were a few *very original* FAIL posts

[dionysus]

39. that dreck you posted isn't worth wasting time rebutting. it's just a heap of bitterness.

you give yourself too much credit.

[mule_train]

45. yet, you did take the time to respond, without rebutting

now why is that?

[Ineeda]

30. Being an optimist,

I see the uptick in the DOW as meaning companies are recovering and becoming more profitable. Profitable companies invest in growth and hire employees. Employees have money to spend and other companies recover and grow. On a personal level, my 401k is all I have, so I'm very happy it's going up in value.

[DireStrike]

32. I can name at least major industry in which companies that profit didn't invest in growth/new employ

ees.

The oil companies actually shrank in terms of employees despite record profits and tax breaks.

Growth means nothing for the little people, except that it is not decay.

[mule_train]

41. spoken like a true corporate democrat nt

[Ineeda]

56. Okay - so I'm a naive optimist.

But don't go calling me such filthy names. (peace)

[DireStrike]

31. Good to know Obama started all the free trade policies and bailouts.

:sarcasm:

Seriously, I think Obama is an extremely weak president. But you've gone overboard. Don't blame it all on one guy just cuz he's stuck holding the grenade when it goes off.

[mule_train]

33. I dont see him addressing it, while he's shoveling cash by the truckload to wall street

and Obama DID fight to keep one of Bushs WORST H-1b increases

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135952/Tech_workers_dealt_setback_in_H_1B_case

Tech workers dealt setback in H-1B case
Appeals court affirms lower court decision, cites lack of 'standing'
By Patrick Thibodeau
July 27, 2009 07:45 PM ET
Comments(38)Recommended(24)DiggTwitterShare/EmailMore





The U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has ruled against the tech workers that have been fighting a federal decision to allow foreign students to work on a student visa from one year to 29 months.

The Programmers Guild and others fighting the student visa extension, approved during President Bush's administration and subsequently backed by President Obama, argued that the extension was a backdoor H-1B increase that has brought more competition to the labor market, hurting wages and job prospects of U.S. workers.

The Bush administration extended the visa in 2008 because of the high demand for H-1B visas at the time, and concern that students, unable to get a visa, would return.

[DireStrike]

36. I agree.

However, if Reagan were in office now it would be worse.

Unless you count the faster societal crash as a good thing, which you might well do.

[Romulox]

51. Obama ENTHUSIASTICALLY supports free trade and bankster bailouts. Are you pretending otherwise?

:hi:

[DireStrike]

53. Nope, I'm taking issue with the implication that these things exist because of Obama

The OP says that reagan would have been better because we would not have had these things now. Yet if zombie reagan had been resurrected and elected, we would have all this and much more.

[mule_train]

55. clarification - I mean the reagan of 1983

I do believe that if reagan had been born a generation later, he'd be pushing the ball further down the road

my point is, that the 'free trade' corporate democrats in absolute terms, are actually worse than reagan of 1983 (in economics, NOT in nuclear warmongering)

[DireStrike]

57. Hm, interesting

This almost sounds like a time paradox. Reagan today would be worse. But the reagan from THEN would have been better, today. But if we had today's circumstances, we would not have THAT reagan, we would have WORSE reagan.

So if only we had the 1983 circumstances, with the 1983 Reagan... we would be in 1983. Haha!

[mule_train]

58. actually, you do get it

we are in a time very similar to 1983 (same unempoloyment level), only today, the workers have to deal with free trade loss of jobs, and a glut of guest workers - a much WORSE headwind, while they are put in debt to bail out the absolute stupidity of the richest people - a conscripted restoration of the ruling class AND NOBODY ELSE

In economic terms, the 1983 reagan actually WAS more sympathetic to workers, although his nuclear sabre rattling risked adding nuclear war to unemplyment

[Ineeda]

78. In 1983 mortgage rates averaged 13% under Reagan,

consistently higher than even the Carter years, compared to under 6% now. It was therefore much harder to get a mortgage then. His economic policies caused huge budget deficits, quadrupling the United States national debt. Unemployment was significantly higher, too.

[mule_train]

79. counter-arguement is that we're far more 'boxed in' back then you could lower interest rates,

you cant now

"His economic policies caused huge budget deficits, quadrupling the United States national debt."

I didnt say anything about debt

but that's not a great topic in the defense of Obama

the deficit has soared under Obama BAILING OUT BANKERS!

[Ineeda]

80. did you forget B*sh admin. actually owns the bank bailouts? n/t

[mule_train]

81. Did Senator Obama own his vote for it?

or has Obama's senate record been airbrushed out of history as 'irrelevant'?

[Ineeda]

82. I just think you can't have it both ways.

The B*sh era caused the bulk of the problems, leaving President Obama holding the bag. The bailouts should have had major strings attached, but didn't. I don't think then-Senator Obama's single vote to supposedly prevent a total economic meltdown is responsible, when 74 votes were cast in favor.

[mule_train]

83. "The bailouts should have had major strings attached, but didn't"--> NO S--T!!!

you really dont read anything into his appointment of Geithner with regards to the utter lack of accountability for all that money?

Emergency?

I was once brought to a hospital after a car accident (not my fault), and yup, they had time to ask me on a stretcher for my insurance card

but then, i'm not a BANKER!

[texastoast]

84. Actually, the bailouts did have a bunch of strings

But, having read most of your posts on this thread, I don't think I'll waste my time pointing them out to you. Obama inherited the worst America that has ever been. That America was created in extremely large part by Reagan and Bush, and I won't forget Phil Gramm.

And if you are "just sayin," go right ahead. Obama is not perfect, and I have vehemently disagreed with some of his actions. However, you should read (and support) all the things that Obama has done right and has accomplished and that have been posted here by many yellow dog Democrats. That's what this board is for. This post does not fit very well. You might be more comfortable on other boards.

[Romulox]

61. Obama owns free trade as much or more than Reagan. He has given FAR MORE to the banksters

than Reagan every did.

Truth hurts a lot. :shrug:

[DireStrike]

62. That's only because he's president NOW

If we had Obama in 1980 and Reagan now, I bet we would be having the same conversation with the names reversed.

[Romulox]

67. OK, that still puts him to the right of George HW Bush circa the 1980 primary

When he famously derided Reagan's economic program as "Voodoo economics".

Reagan's program of deregulation, union-busting, "free trade", militarism, and a blank check for Wall Street are now seen as "mainstream" positions, and those of us who oppose them are called "socialists" on this very board.

edit: Remember that it was Bill Clinton who ushered in the culmination of Reagan's economic program--"free trade" with authoritarian China (no strings attached.) Similarly, W. did not dare send GM, Chrysler into bankruptcy (breaking their UAW contracts,) while simultaneously pouring trillions into Wall Street (again, no strings attached.) It seems the most extreme portions of the rightwing agenda often are only possible if implemented by our "centrist" Dems.

[mule_train]

72. "seems the most extreme portions of the rightwing agenda often are only possible if implemented by o

"seems the most extreme portions of the rightwing agenda often are only possible if implemented by our "centrist" Dems."

BINGO!!!!!

I know we've had our disagreements in other threads, but you are the one in this thread that GETS IT!

[Romulox]

75. Thanks. We don't really disagree on H1b, either. nt

[DireStrike]

73. Well you can't really use primary/campaign statements for political compass

After all, Obama told the AFL-CIO that we need and should have single payer healthcare in this country, during his campaign.

I'm trying to clarify how much of our current problems are due to Obama. There are a lot of things he has said he would or should do, but hasn't because he "can't." Of more interest are the things he has done that have been negative. For example, Arlen Specter. That might well have killed card check.

Yes, it does seem to be the case that the Democrats actually enact many bad laws. But is this because they were in charge, or just due to a constant pressure to move rightward, supported by lobbying and the lazy rich, who think they can change the truths in the world by buying out peoples' opinions? The rightwing agenda moves ever forward, but are the Democrats helpless spectators, or collaborators?

It requires a lot of data to make this decision, and it should probably not ever be made once and for all. I've only been old enough to watch what the last two presidents have done... still trying to figure out who is really in charge around here.

[mule_train]

74. He CAN shovel a trillion to wall street, he CANT adjust free trade or stem flood of 'guest workers'

how that's any better than reagan, that's what I'm asking in this thread

to answer your "There are a lot of things he has said he would or should do, but hasn't because he "can't." "

[Romulox]

76. Shows the difference in the acceptable discourse though...

Even considering, arguendo, that George Herbert Walker Bush was pandering to his "red meat" primary audience, the language he used to do so would be considered "radical" in a present day Democratic primary.

I used to think that all the "yankee" Republicans now call themselves "Democrats", and a lot of the old time Southern Democrats now identify as Republicans. But as time slips on, it seems as if many of the "yankee" Republicans switched parties and then moved right! :wow:

[mule_train]

77. i think there's a lot of truth to that - but to put it more simply

corporations bought and OWN, both parties

[ecstatic]

37. It would have been so much better for all of us if the DOW kept plunging, preferably to 0

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[dionysus]

40. don't you see, if the banks had collapsed and the world plunged into a depression, we'd

really stick it to em then!!11!

[mule_train]

43. too bad they're still not lending

they just stuck it in their pockets

but - at least Obama gave them some 'tough rhetoric' after handing over all the money, no strings attached

[DireStrike]

46. What we should have done was pay off all the bad mortgages

That would have saved the economy for real.

All that bad debt is still out there, it's just been pushed and buried. The elite took some more power with which to push and bury things. Unless the economy makes a full recovery, AND suddenly everyone starts thinking long term, paying down their debt, and otherwise acting responsibly, we will see this again. But people are so worried about preserving their status ahead of the others that they don't see the cost they'll incur when their spite causes the economy to collapse. And the ones that are aware of this think THEY are gonna be the capable ones that ride out the storm and come out on top.

The Secret. The CONfidence game. YOU are better than THEM and one day YOU will be one of US. Circumstances don't matter, just do your best and everything will turn out fine. Setbacks were meant to happen, just persevere. It's all the same lie, writ large. It pervades our society in a hundred different mutations. I just don't see a peaceful way out of it.



Though I do disagree with the OP. Reagan would have been worse.

[mule_train]

48. thanks for understanding the spirit of the post

and i will agree that if reagan were alive, he would be pushing it farther down the road

my comparison was to the economic reagan of 1983, not what he would do today

but i think you really do get what I was trying to say, thanks for taking the time and open mindedness

[DireStrike]

54. Yes, I'm just a nitpicker

I'm more interested in flaws in arguments than in the arguments themselves. Especially with arguments that are attempting to state a good point, like yours.

[ecstatic]

59. As someone with a mortgage, I was excited about that idea but

then someone did the math and realized it didn't quite add up. I think paying us with the caveat that funds would have to pay off past due debt first would have accomplished the same goal, but who knows...?

[DireStrike]

69. Yeah I've heard contradictory things

It probably is a lot more expensive than it seems.

However, my point is that we would have been better off giving the bailout money to shore up those mortgages.

[NNN0LHI]

60. Wouldn't there have been a lot more bad mortgages if we had done what you suggest?

Don't you think myself and others would have felt pretty silly paying our mortgage payments every month if we could just let them go bad and have the government pay them off? Why would anybody pay on their mortgage any more?

Have you considered that?

Don

[mule_train]

63. do you feel less silly paying off giant banker f--kups?

i do get your meaning, and agree with you

but you display an interesting phenomenon - that people are more upsent over a peer getting a small unfair break, than an upper class member getting a GIANT unfair break

and the moral hazzard is even bigger

you think the bankers are being more carefull this year, after being rewarded for recklessness?

[DireStrike]

65. It is certainly more effective to give our money to the rich instead

After all, they have solved the problem. :sarcasm:

In fact I did think of that. I know that I personally would be upset but would continue to pay as I could. We are in this together. Do you also regret paying taxes for services that you don't use? Do you feel silly paying for food since some people are getting checks and living like welfare queens?

[texastoast]

49. Were you working then?

I'd like to know.

And I guess you don't remember the junk bond bailouts, the savings and loan bailouts, Alan Watts, Charles Hurwitz or any of the big "players" at the time.

You are now reaping the fruits of Reaganomics. Like it?

[mule_train]

50. i was in school

and scared to death

just the montion of reagan's name, would put me in a bad mood

my opinion of him has never changed, or been 'rehabilitated'

i see reagan as he really was

i'm just saying i see through the 'soaring rhetoric' for the hot air that it is

[Romulox]

52. This thread belongs in GD:P.

I hate when the 'bots cross over to this board.

[NNN0LHI]

66. The company I retired from invests my retirement fund in the Stock Market

If the Stock Market goes to hell so does my retirement check that my wife and I need to live on.

If that retirement check that is dependent on the Stock Market ever stops that means I don't have any money to purchase the goods or services that you provide. Or hope to provide some day.

Don

[mule_train]

68. let me get this straight-if a worker took the wrong job and loses his job and home, you dont want

his mortgage paid, becasue you are still paying yours (I'm refering to your post below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6978993&mesg_id=6979476

BUT, if YOU make the wrong investments, you want HIM to bail YOU out!

do I read you correctly?

[NNN0LHI]

70. Yes, you have it wrong ... on both accounts.

I don't make any investments. The company I am retired from does. I have no control over that.

And I didn't say I didn't want someones mortgage paid because I pay mine. I asked who would pay their mortgage if they could get someone else to pay it for them?

Don

[TexasObserver]

71. Reagan?! Reagan?!

We were not better off with Reagan.

[proud patriot]

86. seconded

!

[TexasObserver]

87. 1. Deal to stop hostage release until he took office 2. Iran Contra 3. War on Drugs

4. Almost doubled number incarcerated 5. Left Beirut with tail between legs 6. Destroyed local banks and saved big banks 7. Star Wars

there's more

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

85. Fail thread is fail